Fake-Aid
Post on 09-Mar-2016
212 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
Fake AidHow foreign aid is being used to support the self-serving political activities of NGOs
Fake Aid
September 2009
International Policy Network
Rooms 200–205, Temple Chambers
3–7 Temple Avenue
London EC4Y 0HP
United Kingdom
t: +4420 3393 8410
f: +4420 3393 8411
e: inquiries – at – policynetwork.net
w: www.policynetwork.net
Published by International Policy Press, a division of
International Policy Network
© 2009 International Policy Network
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under
copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may
be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means
(electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise) without the prior written permission of both
the copyright owner and the publisher.
Designed and typeset in Latin 725 by MacGuru Ltd
info@macguru.org.uk
About International Policy Network
International Policy Network (IPN) is a non-
governmental, educational and non-partisan
organization whose mission is to encourage better public
understanding of the role of the institutions of the free
society in social and economic development. IPN achieves
this goal by interacting with thinkers and commentators
in many countries and across many disciplines.
IPN conducts, commissions and disseminates research,
directly and indirectly with partner organizations, in the
realms of health, environment, trade and development.
IPN hopes that as a result of its programs, individuals
will be better able to achieve their aspirations, regardless
of race, color, creed, nationality or human condition.
www.policynetwork.net
Contents
Executive Summary 4
Introduction 6
1 Partnership Programme Arrangements 8
1.1 Advocacy and politicisation 8
1.2 Losing independence 8
1.3 Unaccountability 10
1.4 Debatable policies 11
1.5 The future of PPAs 11
2 Civil Society Challenge Fund 13
2.1 Rights-based advocacy 13
2.2 Advocacy in the UK 14
3 Development Awareness Fund 15
4 Strategic Grant Agreements 17
4.1 DfID’S GONGOs 17
4.2 Lack of transparency 18
Conclusion 20
Notes 22
Fake Aid
4
Executive Summary
The Department for International Development (DfID)
claims to be “leading the UK government’s fight against
world poverty”.1 However, increasing amounts of DfID
funds are channelled through non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) to fund lobbying activities,
marketing, and the promotion of political ideology, often
within the UK.
In 2008–092 DfID spent £140 million on
“communications” activities by NGOs whose primary
focus is often not the delivery of aid. Spending on such
communications has rocketed in recent years: starting
with an initial budget just under £38 million in 2000–01,
the total cost of these programmes will reach £1.1 billion
by 2010–11. (see Fig. 1, Table 1)
DfID funds various well-known NGOs – including
Oxfam, VSO, and ActionAid – for vague-sounding
activities such as “awareness”, “promotion”, and
“advocacy”. The programme that funds these activities
has spent over £600 million to date. Most of these grants
are not provided by an open tendering system but are
instead supplied to NGOs that have very close
relationships with government. New applications are
currently not allowed, so this elite band of NGOs has
enjoyed sole access to the increasing funding. (See
Section 1)
When representatives of NGOs engage in public debate
they are typically represented as independent and
altruistic. Yet, as we document, many are subject to
political influence exerted by DfID through its funding
schemes. (See Section 1.2)
Many DfID grants are blatantly self-serving. For
example, it spends annually in excess of £13 million
through the Development Awareness Fund, which
finances UK-based activities to promote “awareness” of
aid, with the aim of creating public support for DfID’s
activities. Rather than improving the lives of people in
poor countries, these programmes smack of propaganda.
Worryingly, most are targeted at school-age children.
(See Section 3)
To put this in context, the World Health Organization
estimates that every thirty seconds a child dies from
malaria, mainly in Africa.3 It is possible to provide high
quality malaria treatment to an African patient for just
$1 (about 60 pence). DfID’s publicity budget for this
year alone is therefore equivalent to around 230 million
malaria treatments.4
DfID has openly funded groups for which “international
development is not their main focus”. (See Section 4)
Some DfID grant recipients have blatant domestic
political agendas. For example:
n The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has received DfID
grants worth over £3.6 million since 2003. Funding
covered lobbying activities, new staff for their
European Union and International Relations
Department, and a party to celebrate “International
Women’s Day”, featuring “Caribbean food and
musical theme.” DfID also paid the TUC to hold
lessons in how to apply for even more DfID funds.
(See Section 4)
n Under one programme, DfID granted the maximum
amount, £300,000, to the National Union of Teachers
(NUT) to “enable them [teachers] to become global
agents of change” through greater involvement with
development issues. The project intends that
teachers can then become involved in “central and
local government department policy debates.” (See
Section 3)
Many DfID grants are unrestricted, and accountability
Executive Summary
5
mechanisms and performance measurement have been
classed as poor by the National Audit Office. (See
Section 1.3)5 For example:
n In 2003 DfID founded a registered charity named
Connections for Development to “provide a forum
for BME [black and ethnic minority] voluntary and
community sector organisations and communities
on issues relating to international development.”
Over £600,000 was paid into the NGO in its first two
years, although an independent audit concluded:
“there is a lack of clarity over the purpose of the
organisation.” (See Section 4.1)
When DfID funds are bundled together with money for
aid work in the field, it is impossible to know precisely
how the money is spent by recipient organisations or
how much is spent on aid delivery rather than advocacy
and public relations. We have documented many
examples of publicly-funded aid work showing a strong
ideological bias. (See Section 2.2)
The theory behind these programmes, known as the
“rights-based approach” (See Introduction) underlies
DfID’s entire budget of £6 billion. This report
concentrates on just four DfID programmes but it is
likely that the same arrant thinking about development,
as well as other errors of judgement, are repeated
throughout other activities and funding mechanisms.
Fake Aid
6
Introduction
Foreign aid became a component of UK government in
the 1960s, with the formation of the Ministry of
Overseas Development. Responsibility for foreign aid has
fluctuated as different governments have formed and
scrapped ministerial departments. The latest incarnation
is the Department for International Development
(DfID), which was formed in 1997 by the incoming
Labour administration. The Conservatives have promised
to continue to support DfID should they come to power.
Since the 1960s, more than $1.8 trillion has been
transferred from richer to poorer countries in the name
of foreign aid.6
Pressure groups and celebrity campaigners argue that
rich countries still give too little aid and demand that
governments meet an arbitrary target of 0.7 per cent of
GDP set by the United Nations in 1970.7 The
Conservative Party in the UK has made a commitment
to increase DfID’s budget to match this target.
The original justification for foreign aid was the “gap
theory”, according to which poor countries lacked
capital for investment, because of insufficient savings,
and so could not grow. The idea was that this investment
(or savings) “gap” would be filled with capital transfers
from rich countries.
For several decades a fierce debate has raged over the
effectiveness of aid. Without seeking to rehearse the
arguments in that debate, it is clear that trends in
thinking about aid have impacted on the way it is
disbursed.
In the 1980s, the World Bank and IMF promoted
“structural adjustment”, the objective of which was to
encourage governments of poor countries to adopt
sound monetary and fiscal policies. This was superseded
in the 1990s by different kinds of “conditionality”. Then,
in the late 1990s, many aid organisations shifted to what
they described as a “rights-based approach” to
development. This approach has been explicitly adopted
by DfID.
DfID’s website states that its beginning marked a
“turning point” at which the UK government’s approach
moved away from the original intention of foreign aid
(to create economic development in poor countries).
Instead, the department began emphasising the
promotion of people’s “rights” to demand services from
governments.
By 2000, the “rights-based approach” was instituted and
DfID began to argue that poverty is “about more than
lack of income”.8 At the same time, DfID began funding
NGOs to disseminate such messages, to participate in
Figure 1 Increase in DfID’s communications budget since 200010
Figures compiled from the Annual Report 2008–09 and the Annual Report 2003–04. (DfID. 2009. Department for International Development Annual Report and Resource Accounts 2008–09. Volume I of II. London: The Stationery Office: page 68. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/departmental-report/2009/volume1.pdf; DfID. 2004. Department for International Development Departmental Report 2004. Annexes. London: The Stationery Office: page 174. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/departmental-report/2004/departreport04annexes.pdf) The background image is by Adrian Clark, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic license (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrianclarkmbbs/3202686128/). Data forming table as follows: figures compiled from the Annual Report 2008–09 and the Annual Report 2003–04, rounded to the second decimal unit. (DfID. 2009. Department for International Development Annual Report and Resource Accounts 2008–09. Volume I of II. London: The Stationery Office: page 68. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/departmental-report/2009/volume1.pdf; DfID. 2004. Department for International Development Departmental Report 2004. Annexes. London: The Stationery Office: page 174. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/departmental-report/2004/departreport04annexes.pdf )
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
0
£25,000,000
£50,000,000
£75,000,000
£100,000,000
£125,000,000
£150,000,000
£175,000,000
£200,000,000
Public partnership arrangementsCivil Society Challenge FundDevelopment Awareness FundStrategic grant agreementsMedia & marketing
Introduction
7
This paper analyses these four DfID programmes and the
grants they award NGOs. We question whether this is a
sensible use of resources, and if the lives of the poor are
enhanced by such projects.
Table 1 DfID’s “communications” programmes11
Taxpayer funding (£ millions)
2000–01 2008–09 2010–11
(planned)
2000–11
total
Partnership Programme Arrangements(“unrestricted” funding for aid, policy making, lobbying)
28.25 108.91 148.00 883.63
Civil Society Challenge Fund(promoting rights and political activities abroad)
3.40 15.75 20.00 126.52
Development Awareness Fund(promoting “awareness” of development in the UK)
5.58 13.71 23.00 117.97
Strategic Grant Agreements12
(funding of groups whose main activity is not development)0.54 0.06 0.00 3.96
Media & marketing 0.00 1.97 7.60 23.95
Total DFID “communications” budget 37.77 140.40 198.60 1,156.03
Percentage increase 271.72% 425.81%
the formulation of public policy alongside civil servants
and elected politicians, and to promote DfID’s work
among the British public, to which end it devoted part of
its budget to “communications.”
The funds are dispersed through four main
programmes:9
n Partnership Programme Arrangements
n Civil Society Challenge Fund
n Development Awareness Fund
n Strategic Grant Agreements
The budget for these programmes currently stands at
£140 million for 2008–09 and is projected to increase to
over £150 million next year, and £198 million the year
after that. The increases in these budgets are depicted in
Figure 1 and Table 1.
Fake Aid
8
1
Partnership Programme Arrangements
The Partnership Programme Arrangements (PPAs)
provide unrestricted funding to large UK-based NGOs.
The mechanism was started in 2000–01, with DfID
handpicking the original set of 10 recipients. Only eight
out of the 27 NGOs currently partaking in the
programme have been assigned funding through
accountable tendering procedures, while the majority
were simply hand-picked by DfID.13
Since 2005, DfID has offered no new call for tenders and
the programme has been closed to
new applicants,14 leaving the few
admitted NGOs to benefit from
considerable budget increases.
However, even greater budget
expansion is planned (the PPAs’
budget is expected to increase by £40 million by 2011)15
with DfID looking for “at least five” new UK-based
recipients.16
The PPA has paid a total of £632.63 million to its small
band of recipient NGOs since 2000. Table 2 below shows
the organisations that currently have a PPA with DfID,
how long it has been running, and its value for the
current period. In bold are the original ten organisations
that were hand-picked by DfID upon the founding of the
PPA system in 2000–01.
DfID states that NGOs seeking funding must offer
“significant engagement in DfID policy formulation.”19
This raises questions regarding the politicisation of aid
funding, the autonomy of these supposedly non-
governmental organisations, and the prioritisation of aid
delivery by these NGOs.
1.1 Advocacy and Politicisation
While the promotion of advocacy would appear to be a
natural outcome of DfID’s shift towards a ‘rights-based
approach’ to development, DfID itself has become
critical of some PPA recipients deemed to have made
excessive moves towards advocacy and political
activities, and away from humanitarian service delivery.
One example concerns Oxfam, who is receiving £27.8
million as a result of its most recent PPA. A DfID report
on the PPA with Oxfam states:
“There are however concerns that have recently emerged
across DfID about their [Oxfam’s]
apparent prioritising of advocacy over
humanitarian delivery, and a sense of
compromised focus and performance
in some of their operations… There
has been specific criticism of Oxfam’s
management, budgeting and implementation of its
humanitarian work.”20
However, this outcome was perhaps inevitable given that
Oxfam’s PPA for 2002 listed “public policy development
and advocacy” as one of its two main aims.
Furthermore, other documents show DfID actively
encouraging Oxfam’s specialisation in these areas:
“DfID fully endorses what Oxfam see as their strengths
in working on trade policy / influencing.”21
The politicisation of NGOs’ work is even less surprising
given the close relationships they have fostered with
government as a consequence of the PPAs. All PPA
recipients must provide DfID with “a significant
working relationship, a common ethos and vision and a
strong match in priority areas.”22
1.2 Losing Independence
PPAs state that the independence of NGOs should be
respected, yet at the same time reveal interferences with
“The majority of NGOs receiving money were simply handpicked by
DfID.”
Partnership Programme Arrangements
9
a further £5.32 million for specific projects (making it
the NGO’s largest donor, supplying 10.6 per cent of its
income in 2004),25 the NGO would have faced some
pressure to take DfID’s recommendations on board.
The level of collusion between NGOs
and government on matters of
public policy is a notable
characteristic of PPAs. Oxfam’s PPA
from as far back as 2002 boasts as
follows:
“Oxfam GB’s Policy Department maintains regular
informal contact with DfID and other UK Government
Departments, such as the Treasury, across a broad range
of policy issues.”
NGOs’ internal policies. The very first ActionAid PPA
criticised child sponsorship schemes. DfID advised
ActionAid that these schemes are “paternalistic” and
“increasingly inappropriate in the current development
policy environment.”23
DfID has even criticised an
ActionAid campaign for the
administrative burden its
campaigns imposed on the
government. Asking citizens to
write to their MPs on global poverty was “not the most
effective or constructive way to tackle this issue”, DfID
stated, as it “resulted in a huge amount of
administration work for DfID.”24 As DfID was in control
of £3.79 million worth of ActionAid’s grant funding and
Table 2 DfID’s current funding of NGOs through Partnership Programme Arrangements (PPAs)17
Name Since Tender Funding for 2008–2011
ActionAid 2000 No 13,820,000Action on Disability in Development (ADD) 2002 Yes 3,030,000Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) 2006 No 2,390,000CAFOD 2001 No 13,180,000CARE 2002 Yes 11,750,000Christian Aid 2001 No 17,420,00Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) 2006 No 1,600,000HelpAge 2002 Yes 5,390,000International HIV/AIDS Alliance 2004 Yes 13,340,000International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) 2006 No 3,180,000International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) n/a No 42,999,99018
International Service 2001 No 4,680,000Islamic Relief 2006 No 2,390,000One World Action 2006 No 3,180,000Overseas Development Institute 2004 Yes 3,410,000Oxfam 2001 No 27,830,000Panos Institute 2004 Yes 5,710,000Plan International UK 2006 No 7,130,000Practical Action 2004 Yes 3,180,000Progressio (formerly Catholic Institute for International Relations) 2001 No 10,310,000Save the Children UK 2001 No 23,370,000Skillshare International 2001 No 74,840,000Transparency International 2006 No 3,180,000Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) 2001 No 89,010,000WaterAid 2002 Yes 3,990,000World Vision 2006 No 7,770,000World Wildlife Fund – UK 2001 No 12,740,000Total £395,141,990
“The level of collusion between NGOs and government is a notable
characteristic of PPAs.”
Fake Aid
10
CAFOD currently has in place can provide an overview
of the progress and impact of the programme as a
whole…”29
Similarly, the 2005–06 review of the partnership urged
CAFOD to “identify some measurable indicators to
illustrate increased engagement” on its programmes
related to economic justice.
NGOs were also criticised for simply listing inputs rather
than measurable outcomes. The 2005–06 DfID review
highlighted “existing indicators” on HIV/AIDS
campaigns that “mostly measure CAFOD’s inputs”
rather than results, and noted in relation to
development awareness that “it would be useful to
ensure that the indicators are measurable.”30
Comparable sentiments appeared in a DfID report to
Oxfam also in 2006, in which the department called for
“more information on how their [Oxfam’s] activities
have contributed to specific outcomes.”31
CAFOD’s 2005–06 statements also raise doubts about
the suitability of “interfaith collaborations” as an object
of public funding, given the difficulties inherent in
measuring their progress and their oblique relation to
economic development.
However, in spite of CAFOD’s protracted inability to
quantify and measure the services it had provided in
exchange for £12.4 million of
funding,32 the partnership was
renewed for 2008–10 with a further
£13.18 million.33
Unsurprisingly, this accountability
system – or lack thereof – was
criticised by a report of the National
Audit Office which found that “this arrangement does
not provide DfID with assurance that it targets the most
effective agencies to maximise the development benefits
of its funding.”34 The National Audit Office found that
“large grants were awarded to organisations with
relatively less efficient results measurement.”35
Following this damning report, DfID belatedly purported
to introduce an accountability framework with “specific,
measurable performance indicators.”36 From 2008, two
years after the report, DfID begun to include new
measures to “demonstrate impact, accountability and
Beyond Oxfam’s regular contribution to DfID’s White
Papers and strategy papers, Oxfam’s PPA mentions
involvement in governmental meetings in the run-up to
the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle and
other international political events. These activities
appear to contradict the NGO’s claims from 2006:
“Oxfam is an independent charity, and as such does not
align itself to any governments.”26
ActionAid, similarly, has campaigned with DfID at the
European Parliament, “liaising with each other” while
the NGO “discussed their approach with DfID and kept
DfID closely informed”. “ActionAid staff have served on
official UK delegations to the WTO, UNCTAD”, they
state, while sending staff on secondments to work in
DfID’s Aid Policy Department regarding the
government’s involvement in the G8.27
1.3 Unaccountability
The PPAs offer NGOs unrestricted public funding,
allowing them to spend funds on any projects within
broadly agreed “areas of partnership”, such as “women
empowerment”, “rights” and “equality and
difference”.28 DfID does not require recipients to consult
or notify the department in advance of the PPA funds
being allocated to projects.
From 2000 to 2006 DfID relied
entirely on NGOs’ self-audits of
their performance. The recipient
NGO was only expected to file a
non-standardised annual report,
applying their own assessment
measurements. This led to
uncertainty over the effectiveness of millions of pounds
worth of funds.
The reports filed by the Catholic Agency For Overseas
Development (CAFOD) in this period show a protracted
difficulty in measuring the impact and efficacy of the
development interventions carried out by the NGO. In
the evaluation of the 2001–2005 partnership with
CAFOD, DfID stated its “slight disappointment” at the
fact that the NGO had found it “difficult to provide more
than an indication towards progress”. The report
continued: “It is unclear from the information available
whether the monitoring and evaluation system that
“DfID relied entirely on NGOs’ self-audits, leading to uncertainty over the
effectiveness of millions of pounds worth of funds.”
Partnership Programme Arrangements
11
of the opportunities to earn a livelihood by working for
all-inclusive hotels. This perhaps explains why the ban
was lifted a year after its implementation.
VSO received nearly £22 million in
PPA funds in 200142 – the year it
lobbied the Gambian government.
It subsequently secured a further
£71.5 million in funding from DfID
for the three-year period 2003–06.
Moreover, its anti-tourism
campaign was listed in the text of the PPA agreement as
one of VSO’s achievements – in spite of its obviously
perverse effect.
The VSO actions seem to contradict Secretary of State
Douglas Alexander’s following statement on UK policy
on trade and development:
“The Government continues to believe that economic
development, which is impossible without a thriving
private sector, is amongst the most important drivers of
poverty reduction. It is private businesses that will create
the bulk of the new jobs, income and taxes that the
poorest countries need to generate for their people.”43
But VSO is far from the only PPA recipient to engage in
activities that seem to contradict the stated policy of the
UK government regarding development. ActionAid is set
to receive £13.8 million from DfID in 2008–11 period44 to
engage in “dialogue, consultation and collaboration on
strategic and policy issues” with the department.45
ActionAid’s website details “campaigns and lobbying
targeted at national governments against free trade…
This includes the UK Government, the EU Government,
WTO, World Bank and the IMF.”46 ActionAid’s rhetorical
armoury includes such dubious assertions as: “no
country has ever developed by following a free-trade
model from the outset”.47
1.5 The future of PPAs
DfID plans to expand the PPAs considerably, with a
projected budget of £148 million for the year 2010–11,
equivalent to a 36 per cent increase on the current
funding level.
The relationship between recipient NGOs and
government goes far beyond what is common in
value for money”37 of partnerships with NGOs. However,
at the time of writing the evaluation of NGOs is still not
carried out by independent external evaluations but
instead left to annual self-audits of
NGOs and the publication of a series
of case studies to showcase the
achievements of selected projects.
The projects run by NGOs with
public funds are not evaluated
individually and only the overall
impact of the “areas of partnerships” is assessed by “a
set of strategic level indicators” reflecting the priorities
of the department.38
Until 2006 NGOs were not required to publicise what
projects had been funded with public money received
under the partnership. A list of publicly-funded projects
still cannot be found on most NGOs’ websites, nor a
breakdown specifying which areas of work the funds
have been directed towards.
In August 2009 DfID launched a new feature on their
website aimed at increasing transparency to taxpayers,
claiming “information about our projects is at your
fingertips.”39 Unfortunately this fails to list individual
projects funded through PPAs, and still does not
recognise the existence of Strategic Grant Agreements.40
1.4 Debatable policies
The funding of political campaigns by NGOs through
loose, unrestricted grants with limited measurement
and oversight can result in activities that are politically
extreme and/or detrimental to development. The author
of a recent article on public advocacy observes:
“The trouble is that ‘public advocacy’ is used to signify a
broad sweep of practices, ranging from public relations,
market research, and report-writing to lobbying, public-
interest litigation, and civil disobedience.”41
For example, PPA recipient Voluntary Service Overseas
(VSO) campaigned for the government of Gambia to ban
companies running all-inclusive package holidays. It
was successful, but it is unclear that this is good for the
people of Gambia. Such a ban might simply redirect
tourists towards all-inclusive deals in countries where
they are not outlawed, thereby depriving Gambian locals
“The NAO found that “large grants were awarded to organisations with
relatively less efficient results measurement.””
Fake Aid
12
competitive public tenders. While the measurement of
actual outcomes takes a back seat, DfID seems intent on
increasing the transfer of funds to the large NGOs to
which it grants Partnership Programme Arrangements.
In a report on their PPA with Oxfam, DfID states: “we
feel that Oxfam could use the PPA more. It would be
useful in future reports for Oxfam to identify how the
existing strong connections could be built on and
suggestions on how this could be achieved through the
PPA. DfID will meet with Oxfam to discuss potential
ideas and suggestions.”48
The Conservatives have stated that, should they come to
power, they will retain the PPA system. They have also
pledged that increased funding will be linked to
“evidence of effectiveness and results, rewarding good
performance and ensuring our aid achieves the most it
possibly can.”49 However, they have yet to specific how
they might achieve this (for example through eligibility
criteria and efficiency measurements for projects).
13
2
Civil Society Challenge Fund
The Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF) allocated
£15.75 million to UK-based, non-profit organisations in
2008–09, with its budget expected to increase to £20
million for the financial year 2010–2011.
2.1 Rights-based advocacy
DfID explicitly uses the CSCF to promote the ideological
rights-based approach that it introduced in 2000.
Applicants to the fund are obliged to
endorse this contentious approach:
Figure 2, from a DfID Powerpoint
presentation, states twice in bold
lettering that all projects must be
rights-based.
DfID’s “requirements for evaluations of CSCF projects”
makes clear in the first sentence that it supports NGOs
(or in DfID’s terminology “civil society organisations”)
“in their role of helping poor and excluded people to get
their voice heard and demand access to better services”
from their government.51 The delivery of services falls,
again, under political lobbying and advocacy, with the
CSCF stating that projects “must lead to a change in
government policy and practice.”52
The CSCF purports to be a means of funding innovative
approaches to service delivery, yet it inherently stifles
innovation by insisting that applicants follow one
dominant ideology. Life-changing programmes run by
NGOs with different views on
development would be excluded on
an ideological basis.
Furthermore, service delivery
appears to be of only secondary
importance to the CSCF. Figure 3
shows that “advocacy and
empowerment” take precedent over any service delivery
concerns when selecting which NGOs receive funds.53
Figure 2 What projects does the Civil Society Challenge Fund support?50
© Crown copyright 2009 “Introduction to Civil Society”
Very basically …
RIGHTS BASED PROJECTS
… That may be innovative service delivery.… That may be service delivery in a difficult
environment… That may be innovative service delivery in a difficult
environment.
… but overall the project must be rights based.
Figure 3 Venn diagram54
© Crown copyright 2009 “Introduction to Civil Society”
A
A
A
A
AAdvocacy &
empowerment
= accept
Innovative servicedelivery
Service delivery in adifficult environment
1st assessment 3rd assessment
2nd assessment
“Service delivery appears to be of only secondary importance to “advocacy and
empowerment”.”
Fake Aid
14
2.2 Advocacy in the UK
As well as promoting a rights-based approach abroad,
applicants are obliged to devote up to 5 per cent of their
grants to “building support for development in the
UK.”55 For each grant, up to £25,000 of public money
can be diverted from international development work
towards domestic media and political campaigning in
support of DfID’s rights-based ideology.56
DfID stresses the need to spread the ideas to the UK
public. The CSCF conditions state:
“All proposals are required to have a component of
building support for development in the UK… It is
essential that they are more than just disseminating
information to supporters who are already convinced
about the importance of development. They should aim
to reach new audiences.”57
As with the examples outlined in Section 1.4, some of
the advocacy work of funded NGOs is dubious to say the
least. The NGO War on Want, for example, was issued
an official warning by the Charity Commission over its
overtly political activities58 which included calls for the
cutting of all cultural, academic and sporting ties with
Israeli people who they deem “complicit at worst and
acquiescent at best” in relation to the Israeli
government’s alleged “apartheid policies.”59 The warning
did not affect DfID’s continued funding of the
organisation, to which it granted £980,119 via the CSCF
in 2007 and 2008.
War on Want’s ideological agenda is evident even in its
relationship with government, accusing the CDC60 group
(a state-owned international development fund) of
using “private equity-type policies” and a “western
capitalist” mentality in helping the poor.61 This is in spite
of the CDC seemingly engaging in projects that help the
poor. Secretary of State Douglas Alexander lauded the
CDC for “encouraging local businessmen [in LDCs] to
keep their money working locally and… attracting
interest from international investors” through
“investment that is both decent and profitable.”62
15
3
Development Awareness Fund
In addition to the UK-based advocacy undertaken by
organisations receiving funding from the CSCF, DfID has
created a separate programme singularly devoted to
“raising awareness” in the UK. In 2008–09 DfID’s
Development Awareness Fund (DAF) granted £13.71
million to UK-based organisations that promote its
favoured perspectives on
international development,
primarily to people in Britain.
Since 2000, DfID has spent almost
£90 million through the DAF and it
is planning to increase the size of
this fund at a considerably greater
rate than the other programmes examined in this paper,
with its total projected budget for 2009–10 and 2010–11
standing at £47 million.
DAF-funded projects seek to change the way people
think about international development issues and to
influence lifestyle choices such as the products that
people buy. For example, projects can encourage children
to purchase certain brands such as Fairtrade and
Traidcraft. In the 2007–08 budget, one grant paid for a
project intended to create ‘a network of young people as
“Fairtrade Ambassadors”.’63
Most of the projects are aimed at school-age children; 21
of the 31 largest funded projects for
2009–10 fall into this category; 87
per cent are aimed at children or
university students; only 4 of the 31
are aimed at neither children nor
students.
For 2009–10, DAF lists 31 funded projects, each of which
have been awarded up to £300,000. In addition, DAF
provides “Mini Grants” of up to £30,000. For 2009–10,
DAF is funding 43 new projects with Mini Grants. A
sample of both types of grants follows:
n Global Education Derby: £209,455 to teach school
children in Derbyshire that “unequal development
fosters poverty and conflict, which undermines
community cohesion in communities in the South
and which in turn, through population migration or
the destabilising effects of failed states, raises
tensions and threatens local community cohesion in
the UK.”
n The National Union of Teachers (NUT): £300,000 to
“enable them [teachers] to become global agents of
change” through greater involvement with
development issues. The project intends that
teachers can then become involved in “central and
local government department policy debates.”
n Development Education Centre (South Yorkshire):
£122,559 for a project in which school-age pupils are
Figure 4 DAF Projects’ Target Groups 2009–1064
© Crown copyright 2009 “Introduction to Civil Society”
Includes school-age children
Includes neither
Includes university students (but not children)
“It is unclear how these projects improve the lives of people in poor
countries. They smack of propaganda.”
Fake Aid
16
to “review carbon trading, and the new Climate
Investment Funds”, among other activities.
n One World Broadcasting Trust: £270,380 to “foster a
new generation of UK media professionals” with a
more positive approach to development. This is
intended to change UK media coverage of
development issues which the project feels is
“dominated by negative images, which can leave
audiences feeling powerless about their role in
reducing poverty.” Among the beneficiaries listed for
the project are “the UK public”.
n The Northern College: £100,000 to provide an
“understanding among its target audiences of issues
such as global poverty and HIV / AIDS.”65
It is unclear how these projects improve the lives of
people in poor countries, or contribute to development.
They smack of propaganda. To the extent that the target
audience is school children, this is particularly
disturbing.
17
4
Strategic Grant Agreements
Strategic Grant Agreements (SGAs) are made with
organisations “for whom international development is
not their main focus”.66 Recipients include domestic
trade unions and other groups with overt domestic
political agendas.
The Trades Union Congress (TUC), for example, has
received over £3.6 million in grants
from DfID in recent years.67 Not a
single project listed under these
grants was exclusively or even
primarily targeted at people in poor
countries.68 Indeed, the only activity
involving individuals from poor
countries consisted of 16 trade unionists from LDCs
being flown to the UK. About £27,00069 of the DfID
grant to the TUC was spent on this project, 6 per cent of
the total 2003–06 grant. The SGA with the TUC includes
“advocacy/lobbying” and “lobbying/influencing
strategies” within its key outcomes to be funded by the
grants.70
DfID asserts that SGA grants should enable recipients to
“work constructively and strategically with DfID in
helping to reduce poverty.”71 Yet the TUC spent the vast
majority of its DfID grant on internal activities
benefitting its members. Grant expenditures included
funding the TUC’s activities at the European Union and
International Relations Department, and free seminars
for TUC affiliates on how to apply to DfID for additional
grants.72 Also covered by the grant was a “Women and
Globalisation Conference” with no declared guests from
poor countries, and a celebration in London’s West End
of “International Women’s Day” at which guests
enjoyed Caribbean food and live music.73
After the first three years of funding a review was
carried out of its effectiveness – yet this was only a
“desk impact study”74 based exclusively on the evidence
that the TUC voluntarily decided to submit.75 This
limited review predictably deemed the strategic grant a
“highly successful project” and the TUC itself ruled that
a “full evaluation by an independent consultant was not
required.”76 Funds to pay for a fully independent review
had originally been safeguarded,
but were axed following an overrun
of £23,720 (or 19.8 per cent of the
total grant) on staff costs due to
salary increases.77
DfID was clearly happy with this
outcome, since it renewed the
TUC’s SGA for a further period of three years and even
increased it by 66 per cent.78 Furthermore, DfID has now
agreed to grant another £2.4 million to the TUC as it
looks to “expand work with trade unions.”79
4.1 DfID’s GONGOs
Perhaps frustrated with the limited influence it has been
able to achieve over some of the larger and more
independent-minded NGOs, DfID has created its own
“NGOs”, which it then funds via SGAs. Meanwhile,
several other so-called NGOs are almost entirely
dependent on DfID.
In 2003, DfID founded the group “Connections for
Development” (CfD)80 whose first objective was to
“provide a forum for BME [black and ethnic minority]
voluntary and community sector organisations and
communities on issues relating to international
development.”81
This government organised non-governmental
organisation (GONGO82) was intended to be a
centralised uniform body representing different
“The TUC has received over £1.2 million from DfID yet not a single
project targeted people in poor countries.”
Fake Aid
18
has received funding from DfID under a “strategic
partnership”. Starting with an initial grant of £1.1
million in 2004–05, Panos currently receives £1.9 million
per annum from DfID – and the total value of its grant
from DfID is £12.2 million.91
In 2007–08 Panos only received 7 donations from private
individuals for a total value of £21,772, equivalent to
0.59 per cent of its income. Meanwhile, only 5.1 per cent
of its income came from individuals and private
foundations combined. Most of the rest came from
various government and intergovernmental
organisations – which together accounted for 93.1 per
cent of its income. Grants from DfID alone accounted for
at least 60 per cent of its 2007–08 income.
The paucity of private donations to Panos London calls
into question the independence of its activities and
raises the spectre of DfID and other government funders
essentially using Panos London to do their bidding.
Indeed, with such a high proportion of DfID funding, is
Panos London really a GONGO?
Another DfID GONGO is a website named Platform 2.92
This is a £10 million scheme run in coordination with
Christian Aid and BUNAC, “aimed at raising awareness
of global development among young British adults from
less advantaged backgrounds.” Platform 2 pays for
British young individuals from “underprivileged”
backgrounds to volunteer abroad at the taxpayer’s
expense.
It seems bizarre that a government
department supposedly devoted to
reducing poverty in other countries
should spend millions of pounds
sending less well off Britons to
witness poverty abroad. This costly
scheme exemplifies the perversity of DfID programmes
focused on “raising awareness”, “public advocacy” or
lobbying. Do these programmes reduce poverty or
otherwise aid development? Or are DfID’s GONGOs
merely promoting propaganda that serves DfID’s own
ideological and bureaucratic agenda?
4.2 Lack of transparency
No explanation of the rationale for this series of
minorities83 – thereby presumably doing away with the
messy situation of having many independent groups
each with different views, which could be awkward for
an organisation seeking to promote a single ideological
approach to development. Some members of CfD have
complained that “events must be organised with
members, not ‘them’ telling ‘us’ what we need or what
is ‘best’ for us!”84
An independent audit challenged the effectiveness of
CfD and the confusion around its function. The audit
noted that, suspiciously, “nearly 40 per cent of members
either have an email address that is out of service or no
email address listed”. It also shed doubt on CfD’s claim
that its membership “shares a common interest in
international development”.85
The independent review strongly criticised the way in
which CfD was set up and run for the first three years,
noting “lack of demonstrable experience in international
development” and the confusion dominating this DfID
initiative.86 The review concluded:
“Overall, there is a lack of clarity over the purpose of the
organisation and how it should meet the needs of both
its membership and its engagement with DfID.”
CfD is solely funded by DfID who granted in excess of
£600,000 in the NGO’s first two years. Its latest accounts
are not available as the NGO (at the time of publication)
is a month late in submitting their accounts to the
Charity Commission.87 CfD’s latest
public report is for the year ending
30th September 2007 and lists all
their expenditure as “Governance
Costs”, while expenditure other
than staff wages is simply reported
as “Other costs” (totalling
£161,825). £7,980 was paid to the trustees of the NGO,
listed as travelling expenses.88 According to Charity
Commission data, CfD consists of just five members of
staff.89
Another example is Panos London, a UK-based NGO
(part of an international network based in the
Netherlands) which works to promote the “participation
of poor and marginalised people in national and
international development debates through media and
communication projects.”90 Since 2004, Panos London
“DfID has spent millions of pounds sending less well off Britons to witness
poverty abroad.”
Strategic Grant Agreements
19
Strategic Grant Agreements is published on DfID’s
website. Grants are assigned by DfID, with no open
tender or competition between organisations, thus
increasing the risk of political favours, influence and
corruption. No full list of beneficiaries is published by
DfID, but a partial list of groups in receipt of SGA funds
appears to show partisan political bias, with funding of
traditional Labour groups such as trade unions, and
groups such as the UK Local Government Alliance for
International Development, a Labour-dominated
coalition of local authorities interested in overseas
development.
Fake Aid
20
Conclusion
DfID’s “rights-based approach” to international
development, with its emphasis on advocacy, has
resulted in substantial and increasing amounts being
spent on communications programmes of the kinds
analysed in this report.
As the total amount spent on these programmes reaches
the £1 billion mark, it is reasonable to ask whether they
have improved the lives of people in poor countries.
The value of DfID’s ideological rights-based approach for
alleviating poverty is unclear. In 2002 DfID itself
admitted that this approach was abstract and had little
practical content:
“Rights-based concepts… have grown out of discourse
largely at the level of theory and international policy. …
field practitioners identify a shortage of practical
methods and approaches to use in the implementation of
rights-based approaches at a programme level.”93
By 2005, five years after the adoption of its rights-based
approach, DfID was reiterating to NGOs working in the
field the request to “develop, test, collate and
disseminate” practical experiences and real case studies
in order to “enable staff of operational development
agencies to promote rights-based
approaches in projects, programmes,
and policy implementation.”94 The
clear implication is that evidence of
a beneficial effect of its rights-based
approach was thin on the ground.
According to Andrea Cornwall, fellow of the Institute of
Development Studies at the University of Sussex, rights-
based approaches to development are “the latest
development buzzword” revealing little attention “to the
underlying causes and power effects of poverty and
inequity.”95
Even if DfID’s communications programmes succeed in
spreading the view that people are entitled to certain
services, there is scant evidence that declaring such
rights actually improves conditions for the poor. The
“right to adequate housing” is cited in the Brazilian
constitution, with human rights ambassadors
congratulating Brazil for having “among the best”
constitutional articles on this right.96 However, 20
million people in Brazil are homeless.97 Similarly, access
to safe water is a human right according to the United
Nations, yet waterborne pathogens cause around 4
billion cases of diarrhoeal disease every year, resulting in
1.7 million deaths.98
Some of these rights were introduced over half a century
ago, such as the right to “enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of health” – introduced in 1946 by
the World Health Organization.99 But even today a child
dies every thirty seconds of malaria (mainly in Africa),100
and over 16,000 people die every day from respiratory
and diarrhoeal illnesses.101
Proponents of the rights-based approach argue that
entitlement ensues from the legal formalisation of such
rights. But it is often not clear against whom these
entitlements are to be claimed.
Moreover, the people who currently
have the worst access to clean water,
nutritious food, good healthcare,
and such necessities are also
typically the people least able to
enforce any rights through courts of law.
DfID’s Civil Society Challenge Fund seeks to create a
“flow of information to poor people” about their “rights”
and the “factors which perpetuate poverty” as a primary
method of alleviating poverty.102
However, a National Audit Office inquiry found that
“UK NGOs… take strong positions on issues that bear no relation to the views
of the people – DfID”
Conclusion
21
nine out of 16 DfID-funded NGOs had no least
developed country (LDC) representation on their boards
at all, and three of the remainder’s LDC representatives
were only small minorities on the boards.103
Commenting on Oxfam’s record on advocacy work,
which cost £9.5 million in 2006 alone,104 DfID noted the
“relatively little mention of how southern civil society
was actually involved in either the design or
implementation of these”, adding that “national
governments complain that UK NGOs (not specifically
Oxfam) take strong positions on issues that bear no
relation to the views of the people.”105
By insisting on ill-defined rights-based practices through
its partnerships with other organisations (NGOs, public-
private initiatives, and foreign governments), DfID risks
stifling innovative methods of aiding development by
imposing a uniform, unproven standard across the
sector.
The research presented in this paper has questioned the
wisdom of DfIDs rights-based approach to international
development. We have argued, largely on the basis of
DfID’s own research and documents, that the approach
does not appear to have resulted in an improvement of
the condition of the poor. Furthermore, substantial
amounts of funding predicated on the rights-based
approach appear to have been spent on projects that
have little if any connection even to the promotion of
the “rights” of people in poor countries, but have instead
been spent on domestic propaganda and lobbying.
The Conservatives have pledged to “ensure the impartial
and objective analysis of the effectiveness of British aid”
should they win the next General Election.106 If that is
the case, a reconsideration of DfID’s “rights-based
approach” in general and its funding of
“communications” in particular would seem to be the
first order of the day. It is time to stop this fake aid.
Fake Aid
22
Notes
Unless stated otherwise, all websites were accessed on
28 August 2009.
1. DfID website, homepage, http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
2. DfID financial year “is based on a 12 month
duration from April to March the following
calendar year.” Dates in the paper are referred to
accordingly. http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/Glossary.
asp#DFID_Financial_Year
3. WHO. 2009. Malaria. http://www.who.int/
mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/
4. March of Washingtons. http://www.
marchofwashingtons.org/
5. The National Audit Office’s report on the efficacy of
DfID’s funding of civil society noted: “Formal
monitoring arrangements provide few insights to
value for money… Scrutiny of project or Agreement
costs should be proportionate to their value. For the
majority of projects and all Agreements we
reviewed, however, there were no indicators which
provided measures of economy or efficiency, using,
for example, benchmarking of procurement activity,
or unit costs for service delivery… Indeed, the
project completion reports note that objectives are
rarely fully achieved.” National Audit Office. 2006.
Department for International Development:
Working with Non-Governmental and other Civil
Society Organisations to promote development.
London: The Stationery Office: page 33. http://www.
nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=f58abf3c-9d6a-46e2–
9775–92bec43a5e3e&version=-1
6. Official Development Assistance in current US
dollars, OECD Query Wizard for International
Development Statistics, http://stats.oecd.org/qwids/
$1.8 trillion for total donors, and $1.7 trillion for
DAC countries. Both are measured in current US
dollars.
7. “Each economically advanced country will
progressively increase its official development
assistance to the developing countries and will exert
its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of
0.7 per cent of its gross national product at market
prices by the middle of the Decade.” UN General
Assembly. 1970. International Development Strategy for
the Second United Nations Development Decade, UN
General Assembly Resolution 2626 (XXV), October
24, 1970, para. 43. http://www.un.org/documents/
ga/res/25/ares25.htm
8. ”Poverty is about more than lack of income… the
failure of politicians and bureaucrats to hear and
respond to their concerns, their lack of access to
services, their vulnerability to violence.” DfID. 2000.
Realising Human Rights for Poor People, Target Strategy
Paper, London. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/
publications/tsphumansummary.pdf
9. DfID’s annual budgets from 2000 up to and
including 2008 listed these four programmes under
“Communications”. In its 2009 budget, Partnership
Programme Arrangements were moved to the
“Policy” expenditure list.
10. Figures compiled from the Annual Report 2008–09
and the Annual Report 2003–04. (DfID. 2009.
Department for International Development Annual
Report and Resource Accounts 2008–09. Volume I of
II. London: The Stationery Office: page 68. http://
www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/
departmental-report/2009/volume1.pdf; DfID. 2004.
Department for International Development
Departmental Report 2004. Annexes. London: The
Stationery Office: page 174. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Notes
23
15. DFID. 2009. Department for International Development
Annual Report and Resource Accounts 2008–09. London:
The Stationery Office: Table 14, page 67. http://
www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/
departmental-report/2009/volume1.pdf
16. DfID. 2009. Eliminating World Poverty: Building our
Common Future. Page133. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Documents/whitepaper/building-our-common-
future-print.pdf
17. Compiled with data from (National Audit Office
2006) and (DfID PPA 2009). The information
published by the National Audit Office and by DfID
differ as to the number of competitions run and the
start date of some PPAs. In cases of disagreements
between the two, this table relies on NAO’s data –
which has been independently compiled and
scrutinised in parliament by the Committee of
Public Accounts. DfID PPA. 2009. “Partnership
Programme Arrangements,” Department for
International Development. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Working-with-DfID/Funding-Schemes/Funding-for-
not-for-profit-organisations/PPAs/; House of
Commons Committee of Public Accounts. 2007.
DFID: Working with Non-Governmental
Organisations and Other Civil Society Organisations
to promote Development. London: The Stationery
Office. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/
cm200607/cmselect/cmpubacc/64/64.pdf; National
Audit Office. 2006. Department for International
Development: Working with Non-Governmental
and other Civil Society Organisations to promote
development. London: The Stationery Office: page
19. http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0506/dfid_
working_with_non-governm.aspx
18. IPPF funding is for the 2009–2013 period.
19. DfID PPA. 2009. “Partnership Programme
Arrangements,” Department for International
Development. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Working-with-
DFID/Funding-Schemes/Funding-for-not-for-profit-
organisations/PPAs/
20. Battcock, Mike. 2006. “Oxfam GB Partnership
Programme Arrangement (PPA): 2001 – 2005 Final
Report DfID Response,” Department for International
Development: Pages 1, 4.
Documents/publications/departmental-report/2004/
departreport04annexes.pdf) The background image
is by Adrian Clark, licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0
Generic license (http://www.flickr.com/photos/
adrianclarkmbbs/3202686128/).
11. Figures compiled from the Annual Report 2008–09
and the Annual Report 2003–04, rounded to the
second decimal unit. (DfID. 2009. Department for
International Development Annual Report and Resource
Accounts 2008–09. Volume I of II. London: The
Stationery Office: page 68. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Documents/publications/departmental-report/2009/
volume1.pdf; DfID. 2004. Department for International
Development Departmental Report 2004. Annexes.
London: The Stationery Office: page 174. http://
www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/
departmental-report/2004/departreport04annexes.
pdf)
12. DfID’s published SGA spending seems unreliable.
Total cost for SGAs in 2008–09 is listed as £60,000,
while the TUC’s Strategic Grant alone amounts to
£252,000 (“Commencing on 1 July 2006, the three-
year Strategic Framework Partnership Arrangement
(SFPA) provides £756,000 to the TUC”). See: TUC
SGA. 2009. “The TUC and the Department for
International Development,” Trade Union Congress.
http://www.tuc.org.uk/international/TUC_DFID.cfm.
13. National Audit Office. 2006. Department for
International Development: Working with Non-
Governmental and other Civil Society Organisations to
promote development. London: The Stationery Office:
page 19, paragraph 2.6. http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.
ashx?docId=f58abf3c-9d6a-46e2–9775–
92bec43a5e3e&version=-1
14. This webpage previously listed the programme as
being closed: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Working-with-
DfID/Funding-Schemes/Funding-for-not-for-profit-
organisations/PPAs/. However, DfID removed the
information. A phone call to DfID in August 2009
informed us that the programme is currently closed
but that recipients should look out for its reopening
at an undefined point in the future.
Fake Aid
24
29. CAFOD PPA. 2005. “Evaluation of the DfID/CAFOD
PPA,” Department for International Development: Page
8. http://www2.dfid.gov.uk/aboutdfid/dfidwork/
ppas/cafod-evaluation04.pdf
30. CAFOD PPA. 2007. “DfID Response to Partnership
Programme Arrangement (PPA) annual report:
2005–06,” Department for International Development:
Pages 4, 6 and 7.
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/
response-cafod-ppa-report-0506.pdf
31. Battcock, Mike. 2006. “Oxfam GB Partnership
Programme Arrangement (PPA): 2001 – 2005 Final
Report DfID Response,” Department for International
Development: Page 9.
32. Cafod received a total funding of £8.7 million in the
2001–05 period (CAFOD PPA 2006: 1) and £3.7
million in 2006 (Charity Commission 2006: 20).
CAFOD PPA. 2006. “Evaluation of the DfID/CAFOD
PPA (2001–2005): DFID Response” Department for
International Development: page 1. http://www.dfid.
gov.uk/Documents/publications/response-
evaluation-cafod-ppa-0105.pdf;
Charity Commission. 2006. “CAFOD Financial
Statements 2006,” Charity Commission: page 20.
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/
registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/
Ends76%5C0000285776_AC_20060331_E_C.pdf
33. CAFOD PPA. 2009. “CAFOD – Partnership
Programme Arrangement,” Department for
International Development.
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Working-with-DFID/
Funding-Schemes/Funding-for-not-for-profit-
organisations/PPAs/CAFOD/
34. National Audit Office. 2006. Department for
International Development: Working with Non-
Governmental and other Civil Society Organisations
to promote development. London: The Stationery
Office: page 22. http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.
ashx?docId=f58abf3c-9d6a-46e2–9775–
92bec43a5e3e&version=-1
35. National Audit Office. 2006. Department for
International Development: Working with Non-
Governmental and other Civil Society Organisations
21. Battcock, Mike. 2006. “Oxfam GB Partnership
Programme Arrangement (PPA): 2001 – 2005 Final
Report DfID Response,” Department for International
Development: Page 6.
22. DfID PPA. 2009. “Partnership Programme
Arrangements,” Department for International
Development. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Working-with-
DFID/Funding-Schemes/Funding-for-not-for-profit-
organisations/PPAs/
23. Action Aid PPA. 2001. “Action-Aid Partnership
Arrangements,” Department for International
Development: page 6.
24. ActionAid PPA. 2004. “Programme Partnership
Agreement Annual Review 2003/2004,” Department
for International Development: page 6. http://www.dfid.
gov.uk/Documents/publications/actionaid-ppa-
review-response.pdf
25. ActionAid. 2004. “Report and Accounts 2004,”
Charity Commission: page 29. http://www.charity-
commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/
ScannedAccounts/Ends67/0000274467_
AC_20041231_E_C.pdf
26. Stocking, Barbara. 2006. “Statement of legitimacy
and accountability” Oxfam. http://www.oxfam.org.
uk/resources/accounts/legitimacy.html
27. Action Aid PPA. 2001. “Action-Aid Partnership
Arrangements,” Department for International
Development: Page 7.
28. The Panos PPA, for example, lists amongst its main
goals: “More inclusive public debate”, “Improved
communication channels” and “Policy dialogue”.
Panos PPA. 2006. “Panos Programme Partnership
Agreement (PPA) Annual Review 2005–06: DFID
Response,” Department for International Development:
Page 1. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/pdf_
misc/panos-response-ppa-rprt-0506.pdf; Oxfam’s
PPA lists “The right to be heard” as one its main
objective. Oxfam PPA. 2006. “OXFAM GB
Partnership Programme Arrangement (PPA)
2005/06 Annual Report: DFID Response,”
Department for International Development: Page 1.
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/
oxfam-ppa-response-0506.pdf
Notes
25
45. Action Aid PPA. 2005. “DfID – Actionaid
Partnership Programme Arrangement 2005–2011,”
Department for International Development: page 3.
46. ActionAid. Questions & Answers. “What is
ActionAid doing to make global trade rules fairer?”
http://www.actionaid.org.uk/100676/questions__
answers.html
47. ActionAid. Questions & Answers. “Isn’t free trade
the way out of poverty?” http://www.actionaid.org.
uk/100676/questions__answers.html
48. Battcock, Mike. 2006. “Oxfam GB Partnership
Programme Arrangement (PPA): 2001 – 2005 Final
Report DfID Response,” Department for International
Development: Page 8.
49. Conservative Party. 2009. One World Conservatism: A
Conservative Agenda for International Development.
Brentford: TPF Group: page 24. http://www.
conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Green%20Papers/
Aid-Policy-Paper.ashx?dl=true.
50. Sorensen, Lone. 2008. “Introduction to Civil
Society,” presentation delivered to the Concept Note
Seminar, Department for International
Development, 5 February 2008. Slide 25.
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/funding/cscf-
concept-note-seminar-feb-2009.ppt
51. CSCF. 2009a. “Requirements for evaluations of Civil
Society Challenge Fund Projects contracted by
DfID,” Department for International Development: page
1. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/funding/
Evaluation-Requirements-2009-revision.doc
52. Sorensen, Lone. 2009. “Civil Society Challenge
Fund,” Department for International Development, 14
May 2009. Slide 7. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Documents/funding/proposal-seminar-cscf-2009-
final.ppt
53. Sorensen, Lone. 2008. “Introduction to Civil
Society,” presentation delivered to the Concept Note
Seminar, Department for International
Development, 5 February 2008. Slide 25.
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/funding/cscf-
concept-note-seminar-feb-2009.ppt
to promote development. London: The Stationery
Office: page 22. http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.
ashx?docId=f58abf3c-9d6a-46e2–9775–
92bec43a5e3e&version=-1
36. CARE PPA. 2008. “CARE Partnership Programme
Arrangement from 2008 to 2011,” Department for
International Development: Page 1. http://www.dfid.
gov.uk/Documents/publications/ppa/care-
ppa-2008–11.pdf
37. CARE PPA. 2008. “CARE Partnership Programme
Arrangement from 2008 to 2011,” Department for
International Development: page 1. http://www.dfid.
gov.uk/Documents/publications/ppa/care-
ppa-2008–11.pdf
38. DfID PPA. 2009. “Partnership Programme
Arrangements,” Department for International
Development. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Working-with-
DfID/Funding-Schemes/Funding-for-not-for-profit-
organisations/PPAs/
39. DfID. 2009. Our humanitarian roundup. E-mail
circular. Received 25th August 2009.
40. The Project Information page can be found here:
http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/
41. Samuel, John. 2007. “Public advocacy and people-
centred advocacy: mobilising for social change,”
Development in Practice 17(4): 215
42. VSO PPA. 2001. “Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO):
Partnership Programme Arrangement,” Department
for International Development: page 14. http://www.
dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/vso-ppa.pdf
43. Alexander, Douglas. 2008. “New Investment Policy
for CDC Group plc,” Department for International
Development. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/
Press-releases/2008/New-Investment-Policy-for-
CDC-Group-plc/
44. ActionAid PPA. 2009. “ActionAid Partnership
Programme Arrangement,” Department for
International Development. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Working-with-DFID/Funding-Schemes/Funding-
for-not-for-profit-organisations/PPAs/AA/
Fake Aid
26
Press-releases/2008/New-Investment-Policy-for-
CDC-Group-plc/.
63. Liverpool World Centre. DfID DAFMG. 2008.
“Development Awareness Fund Mini-Grants 2007–
08,” Department for International Development.
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Working-with-DFID/
Funding-Schemes/Funding-for-not-for-profit-
organisations/DAFMG/Development-Awareness-
Fund-Mini-Grants-200708/ .
64. Data accrued from DfID’s website listings of grants
and mini-grants: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Working-
with-DFID/Funding-Schemes/Funding-for-not-for-
profit-organisations/DAFMG/
Development-Awareness-Fund-Mini-
Grants-200910/, http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Working-
with-DFID/Funding-Schemes/
Funding-for-not-for-profit-organisations/DAF/
Development-Awareness-Fund-Projects-
approved-200910/
65. Similarly, 12 young people in Glasgow and Nepal
“explored the impact of HIV and the stigma
associated with for [sic] individuals in their
communities and wider society” following a
previously funded project run by the Red Cross.
IDEAS. 2009. “DFID Development Awareness Fund
Mini-Grants” http://www.ideas-forum.org.uk/dfid_
mini_grants
66. DfID Glossary. 2009. “Strategic Grant Agreement,”
Department for International Development. http://www.
dfid.gov.uk/About-DfID/Glossary/?key=S.
67. The TUC received an original “strategic” grant of
£255,000 for 2003/06; an additional grant of
£200,000 in 2004 (TUC 2007); a second “strategic”
grant worth £756,000 for 2006/09 (TUC SGA 2006c:
9); and an ongoing Programme Partnership
Arrangement funding worth £2.4 million for
2009/11. See: TUC. 2007. “The TUC and the
Department for International Development”, Trade
Union Congress. http://www.tuc.org.uk/international/
TUC_DfID.cfm <http://www.tuc.org.uk/
international/TUC_DfID.cfm> ; TUC. 2009. “TUC
and DFID sign Programme Partnership
Arrangement,” Trade Union Congress. http://www.tuc.
org.uk/international/tuc-16821-f0.cfm <http://
54. Sorensen, Lone. 2008. “Introduction to Civil
Society,” presentation delivered to the Concept Note
Seminar, Department for International
Development, 5 February 2008. Slide 29.
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/funding/cscf-
concept-note-seminar-feb-2009.ppt
55. CSCF. 2009b. “Civil Society Challenge Fund
Application Guidelines,” Department for International
Development: page 9. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Documents/funding/CSCF-application-
guidelines-2009.pdf
56. CSCF. 2009b. “Civil Society Challenge Fund
Application Guidelines,” Department for International
Development: page 9. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Documents/funding/CSCF-application-
guidelines-2009.pdf; emphasis in original
document.
57. CSCF. 2009b. “Civil Society Challenge Fund
Application Guidelines,” Department for International
Development: page 9. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Documents/funding/CSCF-application-
guidelines-2009.pdf; emphasis in the original
document.
58. NGO Monitor. 2005. ‘War On Want’ Warned by UK
Charity Commission. August 2005.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/_war_on_want_
warned_by_uk_charity_commission_
59. Boycott IL. 2009. “Campaign for an Academic
Boycott of Apartheid Israel,” Boycott Israeli Goods.
http://www.bigcampaign.org/index.
php?page=acedemic_boycott.
60. Formerly “Commonwealth Development
Corporation”
61. Cobain, Ian and Inman, Phillip. 2008.
“Development fund ‘uses private equity-type
policies’,” Guardian, 10 November. http://www.
guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/10/
internationalaidanddevelopment-privateequity.
62. Alexander, Douglas. 2008. “New Investment Policy
for CDC Group plc,” Department for International
Development. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/
Notes
27
77. TUC SGA. 2006a. DfID/TUC Strategic Grant Agreement:
Final Report. London: Trade Union Congress: page
28. http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/SGAreport.pdf
78. TUC SGA. 2006c. “Strategic Framework Partnership
Arrangement between DfID and the TUC,” Trade
Union Congress: page 9. http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/
SFPA.pdf
79. DfID. 2009. Eliminating World Poverty: Building our
Common Future. Pages.132 and 134. http://www.dfid.
gov.uk/Documents/whitepaper/building-our-
common-future-print.pdf
80. Naru, Faisal; Condy, Ann and Naomi Humphries.
2007. Department for International Development:
Evaluation of Strategic Grant Agreement (SGA)
with Connections for Development (CfD). London:
DAI Europe Ltd. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Documents/publications/evaluation-report-sga.pdf
81. CfD’s activities as shown in Charity Commission
data (Summary by GuideStar UK): http://www.
guidestar.org.uk/gs_summary.aspx?CCReg=111024
9&strquery=connections%20for%20development
82. GONGOs are government-organised or government-
operated non-governmental organisations. In
Foreign Policy magazine Moisés Naím discusses this
“almost laughable tongue twister” in an article
entitled “What is a Gongo?”. He outlines their
proliferation under both oppressive regimes and
liberal democracies, noting how they are sometimes
used as “thuggish arm of repressive governments”
or to promote the reputation of the governments
that control the groups (often by stealth). Having
been set up by and entirely funded by government,
CfD is a GONGO.
83. “The impetus to form CfD came from DfID’s
recognition of the importance and need to engage
with BME communities… However DfID realised
that there was no one organisation that it could
engage with and that could fully represent the BME
communities engaged in or interested in
development issues… that led to the decision to
explore the potential for an SGA with UK BME civil
society [and] to create a national body to address
some of the issues raised…” Naru, Faisal; Condy,
www.tuc.org.uk/international/tuc-16821-f0.cfm> ;
TUC SGA. 2006c. “Strategic Framework Partnership
Arrangement between DfID and the TUC,” Trade
Union Congress. http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/SFPA.
pdf.
68. TUC SGA. 2006a. DfID/TUC Strategic Grant Agreement:
Final Report. London: Trade Union Congress. http://
www.tuc.org.uk/extras/SGAreport.pdf.
69. £6759 was spent to invite 5 trade unionists as part
of TUC Mini Grant Scheme (on average £1532 per
person). 11 more unionists were invited under
different projects, whose cost has been estimated
using the figure of £2,000 per guest fixed by TUC as
a maximum expense for the Mini Grant Scheme.
TUC SGA. 2006a. DfID/TUC Strategic Grant Agreement:
Final Report. London: Trade Union Congress. http://
www.tuc.org.uk/extras/SGAreport.pdf.
70. TUC. Strategic Grant Agreement between DFID and the
TUC. Page 8. http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/
tucdfidsga.pdf
71. DfID Glossary. 2009. “Strategic Grant Agreement,”
Department for International Development. http://www.
dfid.gov.uk/About-DfID/Glossary/?key=S
72. TUC SGA. 2006d. “SFPA International Development
Learning Fund”, Trade Union Congress: pages 3–4.
http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/SFPAonedoc.pdf.
73. TUC. 2009a. “SFPA update: January 2009,” Trade
Union Congress. http://www.tuc.org.uk/international/
tuc-16369-f0.cfm; TUC. 2009b. “SFPA update:
January 2009,” Trade Union Congress. http://www.tuc.
org.uk/international/tuc-15920-f0.cfm.
74. TUC SGA. 2006b. Appendix Two To TUC/SGA Strategic
Grant Agreement Final Report. London: Trade Union
Congress: page 5. http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/
SGAimpactstudy.pdf
75. TUC SGA. 2006b. Appendix Two To TUC/SGA Strategic
Grant Agreement Final Report. London: Trade Union
Congress: page 5. http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/
SGAimpactstudy.pdf
76. TUC SGA. 2006a. DfID/TUC Strategic Grant Agreement:
Final Report. London: Trade Union Congress: page
28. http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/SGAreport.pdf
Fake Aid
28
90. Panos. 2009a. “Get your company involved,” Panos
London. http://www.panos.org.uk/?lid=28353.
91. £1.1m for 2004/05 (Panos PPA 2004: 12), £1.795m
per annum between 2005 and 2008 (Panos PPA
2005: 7); and £5.71 for the 2008/11 period (Panos
PPA 2009). Panos PPA. 2004. “The Panos Institute
Partnership Programme Arrangement (PPA),”
Department for International Development; Panos PPA.
2005. “DfID – Panos Institute Partnership
Programme Arrangement 2005–2011,” Department
for International Development; Panos PPA. 2009.
“Panos – Partnership Programme Arrangement,”
Department for International Development.
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Working-with-DFID/
Funding-Schemes/Funding-for-not-for-profit-
organisations/PPAs/PANOS/.
92. http://www.myplatform2.com/
93. CARE PPA. 2002. “CARE Partnership Programme
Arrangement from 2002 to 2005,” Department for
International Development. P. 8
94. CARE PPA. 2005. “CARE Partnership Programme
Arrangement from 2005 to 2011,” Department for
International Development. P. 5.
95. Cornwall, Andrea. 2006. “Historical perspectives on
participation in development,” Commonwealth &
Comparative Politics 44(1): page 78.
96. Golay, Christopher and Melik Ödzen. 2007. The
right to housing : a fundamental human right
affirmed by the United Nations and recognized in
regional treaties and numerous national
constitutions. Geneva : Third World Centre
(CETIM), 2007. Page 19. http://www.cetim.ch/en/
documents/br07-log-A4cover-an.pdf
97. IBGE. 2000. Census 2000. Instituto Brasiliero de
Geografia e Estatística. http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/
default.php
98. WHO. 2005. World Health Report 2005. Geneva: World
Health Organization. http://www.who.int/water_
sanitation_health/rtw1.pdf.
99. WHO. 1946. Constitution of the World Health
Organization. Preamble.
Ann and Naomi Humphries. 2007. Department for
International Development: Evaluation of Strategic Grant
Agreement (SGA) with Connections for Development
(CfD). London: DAI Europe Ltd: page 7. http://www.
dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/evaluation-
report-sga.pdf
84. Naru, Faisal; Condy, Ann and Naomi Humphries.
2007. Department for International Development:
Evaluation of Strategic Grant Agreement (SGA)
with Connections for Development (CfD). London:
DAI Europe Ltd: page 48. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Documents/publications/evaluation-report-sga.pdf
85. Naru, Faisal; Condy, Ann and Naomi Humphries.
2007. Department for International Development:
Evaluation of Strategic Grant Agreement (SGA)
with Connections for Development (CfD). London:
DAI Europe Ltd: page 11. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Documents/publications/evaluation-report-sga.pdf
86. Naru, Faisal; Condy, Ann and Naomi Humphries.
2007. Department for International Development:
Evaluation of Strategic Grant Agreement (SGA)
with Connections for Development (CfD). London:
DAI Europe Ltd: page 3. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Documents/publications/evaluation-report-sga.pdf
87. Charity Commission. 2009. “1110249 - Connections
for Development Limited”. http://www.charity-
commission.gov.uk/ShowCharity/
RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?Regi
steredCharityNumber=1110249&SubsidiaryNum
ber=0
88. Connections for Development. 2008. “Trustees’
Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 30
September 2007,” Charity Commission, pages 8 and
10. http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/
registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/
Ends49%5C0001110249_ac_20070930_e_c.pdf
89. Connections for Development. 2008. “Trustees’
Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 30
September 2007,” Charity Commission. Page 11.
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/
registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/
Ends49%5C0001110249_ac_20070930_e_c.pdf
Notes
29
http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_
constitution_en.pdf
100. WHO. 2009. Malaria. http://www.who.int/
mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/
101. Stevens, Philip. 2007. “Diseases of poverty and the
10/90 Gap” In Stevens, P. (Ed). Fighting the Diseases of
Poverty. International Policy Press: London. Figure 1,
page 128. http://www.fightingdiseases.org/pdf/
Diseases_of_Poverty_FINAL.pdf
102. CSCF. 2009b. “Civil Society Challenge Fund
Application Guidelines,” Department for International
Development. P. 3–4. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Documents/funding/CSCF-application-
guidelines-2009.pdf
103. National Audit Office. 2006. Department for
International Development: Working with Non-
Governmental and other Civil Society Organisations
to promote development. London: The Stationery
Office. Annex 1. http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.
ashx?docId=eebab6fe-5aa8–4cfa-ae36–
97f55ba62967&version=-1
104. Oxfam PPA. 2006. “Oxfam GB PPA Annual Progress
Report 2005/06,” Department for International
Development. Page 3. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Documents/publications/Oxfam-PPA-annual-
report-0506.pdf.
105. Battcock, Mike. 2006. “Oxfam GB Partnership
Programme Arrangement (PPA): 2001 – 2005 Final
Report DfID Response,” Department for International
Development. Page 6.
106. “We will ensure the impartial and objective analysis
of the effectiveness of British aid through an
Independent Aid Watchdog.” Conservative Party.
2009. One World Conservatism: A Conservative Agenda for
International Development. Brentford: TPF Group. P.
15. http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/
Green%20Papers/Aid-Policy-Paper.ashx?dl=true)
top related